Literature DB >> 28946826

When to biomechanically examine a lower-limb amputee: A systematic review of accommodation times.

Andrea B Wanamaker1, Rebecca R Andridge1, Ajit Mw Chaudhari1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hundreds of investigations examining biomechanical outcomes of various prostheses have been completed, but one question remains unanswered: how much time should an amputee be given to accommodate to a new prosthesis prior to biomechanical testing?
OBJECTIVE: To examine the literature for accommodation time given during biomechanical investigations to determine whether consensus exists. STUDY
DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: A systematic search was completed on 7 January 2016 using PubMed and Scopus.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 156 investigations. Twenty-eight studies did not provide an accommodation or were unclear (e.g. provided a "break in period"), 5 studies tested their participants more than once, 25 tested only once and on the same day participants received a new prosthesis (median (range): above-knee: 60 (10-300) min; below-knee: 18 (5-300) min), and 98 tested once and gave a minimum of 1 day for accommodation (hip: 77 (60-180) days; above-knee: 42 (1-540) days; below-knee: 21 (1-475) days).
CONCLUSION: The lack of research specifically examining accommodation and the high variability in this review's results indicates that it remains undecided how much accommodation is necessary. There is a need for longitudinal biomechanical investigations to determine how outcomes change as amputees accommodate to a new prosthesis. Clinical relevance The results of this review indicate that little research has been done regarding lower-limb amputees accommodating to a new prosthesis. Improper accommodation could lead to increased variability in results, results that are not reflective of long-term use, and could cause clinicians to make inappropriate decisions regarding a prosthesis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics of prosthetic/orthotic devices; accommodation; biomechanics; prosthetics; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28946826     DOI: 10.1177/0309364616682385

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prosthet Orthot Int        ISSN: 0309-3646            Impact factor:   1.895


  9 in total

1.  Human-prosthesis coordination: A preliminary study exploring coordination with a powered ankle-foot prosthesis.

Authors:  Bretta L Fylstra; I-Chieh Lee; Stephanie Huang; Andrea Brandt; Michael D Lewek; He Helen Huang
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Deleterious Musculoskeletal Conditions Secondary to Lower Limb Loss: Considerations for Prosthesis-Related Factors.

Authors:  Ashley D Knight; Christopher L Dearth; Brad D Hendershot
Journal:  Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle)       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 4.730

3.  Experimental comparisons of passive and powered ankle-foot orthoses in individuals with limb reconstruction.

Authors:  Elizabeth Russell Esposito; Kelly A Schmidtbauer; Jason M Wilken
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.262

4.  The influence of powered prostheses on user perspectives, metabolics, and activity: a randomized crossover trial.

Authors:  Jay Kim; Jeffrey Wensman; Natalie Colabianchi; Deanna H Gates
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 4.262

5.  Biomechanical evaluation over level ground walking of user-specific prosthetic feet designed using the lower leg trajectory error framework.

Authors:  Victor Prost; W Brett Johnson; Jenny A Kent; Matthew J Major; Amos G Winter
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Evaluation of an articulated passive ankle-foot prosthesis.

Authors:  Elke Lathouwers; Toon Ampe; María Alejandra Díaz; Romain Meeusen; Kevin De Pauw
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 3.903

7.  Characterizing the Gait of People With Different Types of Amputation and Prosthetic Components Through Multimodal Measurements: A Methodological Perspective.

Authors:  Cristiano De Marchis; Simone Ranaldi; Tiwana Varrecchia; Mariano Serrao; Stefano Filippo Castiglia; Antonella Tatarelli; Alberto Ranavolo; Francesco Draicchio; Francesco Lacquaniti; Silvia Conforto
Journal:  Front Rehabil Sci       Date:  2022-03-17

8.  High-Level Mobility of Trans-Tibial Prosthesis Users Wearing Commercial and sPace Energy-Storing Prosthetic Feet.

Authors:  Thanyaporn Rakbangboon; Gary Guerra; Saloottra Kla-Arsa; Uthumporn Padungjaroen; Pairat Tangpornprasert; Chanyaphan Virulsri; Kazuhiko Sasaki
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-10-02       Impact factor: 4.614

9.  A biomechanical assessment of hydraulic ankle-foot devices with and without micro-processor control during slope ambulation in trans-femoral amputees.

Authors:  Xuefei Bai; David Ewins; Andrew David Crocombe; Wei Xu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.